9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (AR) for the Respondent ORDER PER: P. DINESHA These appeals are filed against the common order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai dated 29.08.2012. In his order the Commissioner has rejected the appeals filed by the appellant as hit by limitation, ie., appeals having been filed beyond the stipulated period of 60 days. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has further observed that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both and considered the documents furnished. 4. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant was not aware of the Customs procedure and hence it had filed an appeal against the OIO before the Asst. Commissioner vide acknowledgement dated 08.06.2010. The appellant during the course of hearing has relied on the decision of J.M Baxi & Co. Vs. GOI - 2016 (336) ELT 285 (Mad.) and also the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r such a reputed company to plead ignorance. Be that as it may, the minimum response that was expected, especially when the Commissioner (Appeals) points out the lack of an application for condonation, is to file one at the earliest. Ignorance, however, cannot continue beyond this point when the lower appellate authority has specifically flagged the issue. We therefore find it appropriate to put t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
